Is There Evidence for a Creator of the Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brushman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Suggestions
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the debate between the existence of a creator versus the idea that the universe and intelligent life are products of chance. It argues that a complex system capable of supporting intelligent life is unlikely to be mere coincidence, suggesting the possibility of a creator. However, counterarguments highlight the uncertainty surrounding the origins of physical laws and the anthropic principle, questioning the need for a creator. The conversation also emphasizes that natural regularity combined with chance can explain biological complexity, challenging the notion of intelligent design. Ultimately, the dialogue reflects on the limits of both scientific understanding and philosophical reasoning regarding the existence of a creator.
  • #251
Evo said:
It doesn't work that way george. You claim something exists, so you need to provide proof, not the one that doesn't believe you.



Isn't it somewhat hypocritical, since it was you that made the following claim in post number 5, right in the beginning of the thread:

Evo said:
There is no need for a "creator" in nature.


How do you know this and where is the evidence for this claim? You claim something can come and be in existence without a creator. The onus is on you to provide evidence for your claim.

I made no categorical claims that God must necessarily exist. INSTEAD, I did state that it was a belief, and beliefs are NEVER proven, as they wouldn't be beliefs otherwise.



You keep making things up that people haven't said and obviously do not mean.


He said I didn't demand evidence but when i was pushed to present evidence, i also demanded that atheists present evidence for their assumptions. Sorry but this obviously is a very typical human reaction on my part and i would have been an idiot if, as a response to the challenge, i didn't demand evidence for the assumptions of natural origins. Am i supposed to NOT question and reply to atheists challenges with contra challenges? If they were certain of their position and were on solid ground, that should have been no problem at all.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #252
GeorgCantor said:
How do you know this and where is the evidence for this claim? You claim something can come and be in existence without a creator. The onus is on you to provide evidence for your claim.
LOL, no, it doesn't work that way georg.

We have enough knowledge of how things are formed and the laws that they obey that there is no need for "magic" as an explanation.
 
Last edited:
  • #253
Evo said:
LOL, no, it doesn't work that way georg.

We have enough knowledge of how things are formed and the laws that they obey that there is no need for "magic" as an explanation.



You have zero knowledge if existence is a natural state. If you had, the evidence would have been on the table by now.
 
  • #254
GeorgCantor said:
You have zero knowledge if existence is a natural state.
As opposed to what georg?
 
  • #255
Evo said:
As opposed to what georg?


Weren't i talking of God as a possible cause for anything being in existence? As far as i remember, i have been talking about this very point for a few hours now, so what did you mean?
 
  • #256
The mentors have decided it's past time to shut this down.
 
Back
Top